COME
NOW, this 5th day of July, 2017, the Court, having held a
hearing on the motions on May 19, 2017 and after
consideration of submissions on June 8, 2017, finds as
follows:

1. On
November 22, 2016, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Credit
Acceptance Corporation ("Plaintiff") filed an
action against Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Stewart
Liggon ("Defendant") for defaulting on a retail
installment contract for the purchase of a 2007 Chevrolet
Impala (the "Vehicle"). The contract was assigned
to Plaintiff from First Choice Auto Sales, Inc. (the
"Dealer").

2. On
December 30, 2016, Defendant filed an Answer and
Counterclaim, alleging the Vehicle was a "lemon."
Defendant also claims the Dealer failed to provide him with a
copy of the Vehicle's "CarFax" after requested.
Additionally, Defendant claims he is the "victim of
fraudulent business practices, " and seeks punitive and
compensatory damages against Plaintiff.

3. On
January 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, alleging the retail
installment contract Defendant signed contained a provision
which requires arbitration of both Plaintiff's claim for
breach of contract and Defendant's counterclaim related
to the quality of the vehicle.

4. On
March 3, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's
Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration, at which Defendant
failed to appear. However, Defendant's mother, Elizabeth
Liggon ("Ms. Liggon"), appeared attempting to
represent Defendant and asserted-over objection of
Plaintiff's counsel-the issue of Defendant's
competency to enter into the retail installment contract. The
Court passed the motions until May 19, 2017, and permitted
Defendant leave to "file any motion raising the issue of
competency within twenty (20) days."

5. On
March 23, 2017, Ms. Liggon submitted a letter to the Court,
on behalf of Defendant, stating Defendant suffers from
dyslexia and cannot read. Ms. Liggon requested Defendant
"be given the help he needs to understand these
proceedings and anything else he is asked to sign."
Furthermore, on April 7, 2017, Ms. Liggon submitted another
letter to the Court, in the form of a motion, requesting the
Court appoint counsel to represent Defendant. On May 12,
2017, Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition of Ms.
Liggon's motion to appoint counsel and a cross-motion to
strike Ms. Liggon's motion to appoint counsel.

6. On
May 19, 2017, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, Ms. Liggon's
motion to appoint counsel, and Plaintiff's cross-motion
to strike Ms. Liggon's motion to appoint counsel. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Court reserved decision, and
ordered supplemental briefing.

7. In
Delaware, only attorneys admitted to the Bar of the State of
Delaware or attorneys admitted pro hac vice may
appear before the Court on behalf of another
individual.[1]Any attempt by a non-attorney to appear
before the Court on behalf of another is considered the
unauthorized practice of law.[2] The Delaware Supreme Court has
held:

"The unauthorized practice of law is prohibited so that
members of the public will receive legal representation only
from a person who has demonstrated his or her competence to
practice law by passing the bar examination, as well as the
character and fitness examination, and who is subject to the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.